University of Central Florida STARS

Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019

2006

Surviving Reality: Survivor & Parasocial Interaction

Pedro Davila-Rosado University of Central Florida

Part of the Communication Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu

This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected].

STARS Citation Davila-Rosado, Pedro, "Surviving Reality: Survivor & Parasocial Interaction" (2006). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 866. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/866 SURVIVING REALITY: SURVIVOR & Parasocial Interaction

by

PEDRO N. DÁVILA-ROSADO B.A. University of Central Florida, 2001

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Nicholson School of Communication in the College of Arts & Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida

Spring Term 2006

© 2006 Pedro N. Dávila-Rosado

ii ABSTRACT

Parasocial interaction is the name that Horton & Wohl coined to describe

a viewer’s attachmentent toward onscreen persona that they had never physically interacted

with (1956). A. Rubin, Perse, & Powell (1985) continued the research and created the Parasocial

Interaction Scale. The scale has become the standard in gauging parasocial interaction in various

forms of media from soap operas to newscasts. The purpose of this study was top examine

parasocial interaction and see if the concept could be applied to the current television trend of

reality television. Simultaneously, the study also examined parasocial interaction and its possible connections to loneliness, interpersonal functional alternatives, television viewing motives, exposure, gender, age, and spokesperson selection.

The data for this study was collected on the Internet website www.Survivorthesis.com.

More than 450 respondents attempted the survey, but only 444 were viable due to incomplete

data, repetition, and lack of proof of age. The results of the study found that there was a link

between parasocial interaction and loneliness, exposure, spokesperson selection, and television viewing motives. There was no correlation found between parasocial interaction and interpersonal functional alternatives, age, gender.

iii

To my loving and supportive family. I would never have made it as far as I have in life without your ever present strength and example. Every word of this thesis has been made possible because of your belief in me. Thank you. I love you all.

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There is not enough time or paper to thank every single person that has been involved

with this thesis. I am thankful for the blessings and the lessons I have learned with you by my

side. I would like to start off by thanking my parents: You both worked so hard to make sure that

I got to this point (even when I didn’t want to finish) and I am eternally grateful to you for that.

Thank you to my sister, Iris, for being the best example for me possible. To Charlie, thank you for pressuring me to finish my thesis and your undying support throughout the process.

I have a huge debt of gratitude to my committee who supported and guided me from my

first semester in college to my graduating semester inn grad school. Thank you Dr. Collins for

making me rewrite, reword, and redo everything until it was ready. Dear Sally (Joan McCain),

thank you for constantly editing my words and making me sound smarter than a TV Guide.

Kirsten Seitz: You are a miracle worker. Thank you for constantly hearing me complaining and

whining and telling me to get over it and just get it done. I would never have made it without

you. Thank you to my brothers-in-arms Amanda, Regan and Q for always helping me with

anything involved in this process. I would also like to thank Kelly Monaco, Ingo Rademacher,

Rupert Boneham, Kyle Brandt, Kelly Clarkson and Susan Lucci for the willingness to take time

out of their schedules to discuss with me the phenomena of parasocial interaction and their

experiences with it.

To the most important person involved in this thesis: Alicia, you brought me coffee when

I spent nights at the computer lab; you stood with me for hours for 15min interviews; you

kidnapped my remote control; you pushed me harder than I have ever been pushed before and I

adore you for it. I can never repay you for all of the time and support you have given. Thank you.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... vii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW...... 4

Uses & Gratification ...... 4

Parasocial Interaction...... 8

Reality Television & Parasocial Interaction ...... 18

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...... 25

Participants...... 25

Hypothesis Testing...... 25

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS...... 31

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION...... 39

APPENDIX A: TABLES...... 52

APPENDIX B: WEBSITE...... 86

APPENDIX C: HIGHLIGHTS CHRONICLING THE MEDIA’S COVERAGE OF BRKICH &

MARIANO’S RELATIONSHIP ...... 92

APPENDIX D: OTHER REALITY TELEVISION SHOWS COVERAGE ...... 98

APPENDIX E: IRB INFORMATION...... 102

LIST OF REFERENCES...... 107

vi LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Age and Television Viewing Habits...... 53

Table 2: Means and standard deviations for parasocial interaction, loneliness, television watching

motives, media alternatives, and spokesperson scales...... 54

Table 3: Percentages of parasocial interaction for the entire sample...... 55

Table 4: Percentages of parasocial interaction for male respondents...... 58

Table 5: Percentages of parasocial interaction for female respondents...... 61

Table 6: Percentages of loneliness for entire sample...... 64

Table 7: Percentages of loneliness for male respondents ...... 67

Table 8: Percentages of loneliness for female respondents ...... 70

Table 9: Percentages of television viewing motives for entire sample...... 73

Table 10: Percentages of interpersonal functional alternatives for entire sample ...... 80

Table 11: Percentages of spokesperson affinity for entire sample ...... 83

Table 12: Correlations for Parasocial Interaction ...... 85

vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Survivor is arguably the show in the new millennium that has impacted the television

landscape more than any other. The show remains a ratings juggernaut that’s managed to create

a Super Bowl level audience. According to author Peter Lance, “Survivor, watched by 71

million Americans in the last of its 13 episodes: the runaway hit made instant celebrities of its 16

Castaways, shifted CBS’s demographic from a Reader’s Digest base to MTV’s and grossed $52 million for the network’s parent company, Viacom.” Former Castaways have graced everything from magazine covers to the small and silver screen.

On October 7, 1999, the CBS publicity department announced the creation of a summer series with a one page press release that was given to various media outlets. “One of 16 men and women stranded on an uninhabited island will outlast the others and win $1,000,000 on the new

CBS reality adventure series SURVIVOR (Press Release http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/buzz/press_release100799.shtml). The second press release on December 16, 1999, announced that over 6,000 submissions had been received for the series. It wasn’t until March 13, 2000, that more than 1000 interviews had been completed and the 16 Castaways were selected and sent to Borneo for what was being touted as “the greatest adventure of a lifetime.” On May 31, 2000, the first episode aired and Sonja Christopher became the first person to hear the catch phrase “The Tribe has spoken” as her torch was snuffed by the host of the series, Jeff Probst.

Survivor claims to be a game that examines the interpersonal conflicts of its contestants as they are stripped of the conveniences of modern life and forced to make a society under the construct of the game. Traditionally, the 16 Castaways are divided into two tribes by the

1 producers and then sent to two different parts of the island without any form of supplies or luxury items. The tribes then meet again only when they are pitted against each other for a reward or an immunity challenge. The losing tribe must then attend “Tribal council” where they will vote off a member of their tribe.

The Survivor All-Stars edition focused greatly upon the fledgling relationship of Amber

Brkich of Survivor: Australian Outback and “Boston” Rob Mariano of Survivor Marquesas.

Although the duo had met through the “Survivor” circuit, it was not until the pair were stranded on the Pearl Islands that they became romantically involved and ultimately began to dominate the game. In the Australian version of the show, Brkich placed fifth, while in the Marquesas version Mariano placed eleventh. The duo ultimately ended Survivor All-Stars season as the last two members of the game. Before the live announcement of who had won the season, Mariano bent on one knee and proposed to his competitor. Brkich ultimately won the season. The pair began a whirlwind circuit of appearances on magazine covers, and other television shows including the reality television series The Amazing Race.

The Amazing Race is a competition around the world. Pairs are challenged to leave one destination and arrive at another destination using the clues provided to them in yellow envelopes. Envelopes are given to the pairs after they have completed an indigenous task. On the Amazing Race, the pair was saved from multiple eliminations through their Survivor fame but not without the ire of their fellow contestants. The host of the show, Phil Keoghan, was quoted

“Right at the starting line I picked up a lot of animosity toward them.” (People, 2005) The show focused on the pairing courtship around the world. CBS also purchased the rights to the pairs’ wedding. Due to their constant presence as a unit Brkich has said “when they (fans) only see one of us they immediately think we’ve broken up!” (People, 2005) The ratings for the Amazing

2 Race 7 were the highest that they have ever been and recently the show won an Emmy for Best

Reality Television Program.

The trend in reality television has sparked numerous debates in communication research.

The findings of this research are important to both academia and the professionals alike because

it can begin to shed light upon the growing phenomena of reality television and the manner in

which products (programs, merchandise, et al) and spokespersons are chosen specifically in the field of parasocial interaction, a sub category of uses and gratifications. Quite simply, parasocial interaction is when a viewer feels a connection or a bond toward someone that they have never met. Academically, this research is a further exploration of theory and a reexamination of the

Parasocial Interaction Scale. It is an opportunity to revisit the original work of the research team,

A. Rubin, Perse, and Powell, and to see if changes in both the instruments used to obtain the data, changes within the scales and the changes in society itself will lead to different results.

Professionals will be interested in this research because it will help them learn more about audience activity in a genre that has generated billions of dollars in magazine and advertising sales.

3 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Although this study focuses on parasocial interaction, it is important to understand

uses and gratifications because this is the larger theoretical umbrella under which parasocial

interaction falls.

Uses & Gratification

In communication studies, Uses and Gratifications have been studied to seek out

motivations that people have for turning toward the media. The same program may satisfy different needs in people. Mood can influence media selection and different reasons for watching including: information, personal identity, entertainment, integration and social interaction

(McQuail, 1987). Uses and Gratification research assumes an active audience that chooses particular content for particular reason. Current research implies that psychological disposition and personal social circumstances work together to influence habit and expectations of the media. Lull’s research in the field suggests a breakdown of the social uses of television (1990).

In his book he divides the uses into two groups: structural (environmental or regulative) and relational (communication facilitation, affiliation/avoidance, social learning, competence/dominance). Environmental structural usage is similar to background noise while regulative usage is a timekeeping method. The relational group’s four main categories deal with illustrations. Communication facilitation is giving examples to set a common ground.

Affiliation/avoidance deals with relationship maintenance. Social learning is a learning environment similar to schools where a person is inoculated into the culture, while, competence/dominance is intellectual validation.

A. Rubin has applied Uses and Gratifications to his work on parasocial interaction.

4 Through his research, A. Rubin has examined habitual viewing, companionship, and attraction,

which theorists speculate may be the cause of parasocial interaction.

A. Rubin (1977) examines if age can be a factor for television usage and gratifications,

attitudes, and behavior. He divided his 140 subjects into three different age groups: children

(under 10), tweenagers (13 year olds), and teenagers (17 years old) and has them fill out

questionnaires to see if there is a difference in the types of shows they watch, their attitudes

toward the medium and how they use television. A. Rubin derived his population from the

public schools in Champaign, Illinois. The results indicated that the children habitually watched

twice as much television than the eldest sample, which is indicative of a trend to wean kids off of

television as they grow. Excluding the amount of viewing as a factor, habitual viewing did not

correlate with the age of the subjects. A. Rubin believes that there may be a conceptual

difference between watching television purposefully and non-purposefully. He posits that

“purposeful viewing motivations varies with age, non-purposeful viewing behaviors do not.”

At the time the article was published this was seen as a discrepancy because of the

viewing habits of the middle-aged and a trend to steadily increase television usage into

adulthood. A. Rubin’s findings did coincide with Greenberg’s findings regarding age as a

negative correlate. A. Rubin also found that there was a steady decline between the age groups

in television affinity (parasocial interaction) and perceived reality which was consistent with previous findings. The study did agree with other findings that there was an increase in music- variety programs and a decline in viewing children’s entertainment programs and news programs. At the time of his study, MTV and its subsidiary networks had not even been conceived of, much less become the driving force of teenage culture in America. According to the latest Nielsen rating report, where American Idol is the most watched television series, this

5 trend continues. Content wise, the age groups all agreed upon comedies and dramas as being the most preferred. They also all agreed that habit was the predominate reason for watching television.

In examining content, A. Rubin (1981) decided to analyze whether viewers’ motivations regarding television usage varied depending on the content of the program and found that there were interconnected reasons that exceeded content. A. Rubin adapted the Greenberg (1974) study of British children and adolescents’ viewing motivations for the purpose of this study which utilized a questionnaire that was distributed to more than 500 respondents from various local communities circa 1979. The questionnaire was divided into five main sections: “60

Minutes” viewing motivations, sources of information, television viewing behaviors, television attitudes and demographic characteristics. Results indicated that respondents use a television

program for information, and to fill idle leisure time, but also use additional resources for their

information needs.

A. Rubin (1983) tested two groups of Midwestern communities to see if there was a set

of pattern interactions among television viewing motivations, behaviors, and attitudes for adult

viewers through questionnaires. Through his research, A. Rubin found that information viewing

and pass time/habit viewing motivation factors were the only variables that were not related but

that both were related to companionship and escapism. His research focused on trying to discover if the patterns that cause television usage could explain the behaviors and attitudes of

the viewer. From the original sample, he created a secondary sample selected from the original

data set in order to further examine his research questions while eliminating extraneous

questionnaires of over-represented age groups.

The results indicate three types of viewers based on their motivations for watching

6 television with no obvious program preferences: those who watch for entertainment, those who watch for companionship/information, and the amalgamation of information and entertainment.

Of specific interest is that the multiple regression found that the entertainment motivation also strongly contributes to a sense of realism in television content. In contrast, the results also indicate that escapist viewing did not contribute toward television affinity or realism which does not reconcile with previous studies that indicate a positive relationship between the two.

Ableman’s study on religious television (1987) adds to the body of literature that supports interrelatedness of television use motives and the identification of instrumental and ritualized patterns in usage. Viewers of this specific genre are purposeful and selective information seekers. Ritualized television use includes habitual viewing and reflects a strong association with the medium. Abelman discovered a high level of affinity with the persona. The study also showed that viewers of these programs lowered their actual church attendance.

Abelman arrived at his findings via a questionnaire that was given to 210 random cable television subscribers.

Babrow’s (1988) study cautions researchers about relying too heavily on self-reported measures because of the limits of the audiences’ awareness to their own motivations for watching television. In his meta-analysis of the literature regarding Uses and Gratifications in regards to television, he believes that the limits of the research itself will educate researchers on how the audience experiences content, structure, and interpretative frameworks.

Greenberg’s (1974) study on gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for

British children found that the five factors (Habit, Arousal, Companionship, Relaxation, and

Forget) were evenly ranked as motivations. Learning, however, was found to be ranked higher than all of the others. Greenberg also reported that there was a similarity across age groups in

7 regards to these factors. The subjects were divided into three groups based upon age (9 year olds, 12 year olds, and 15 year olds). He did find that there was a structural flow of motivations from the age groups and that 12 years of age was pinpointed as the transitional age. There was a difference in how each group strongly felt the effects. The 9 year olds reported feeling the effects stronger than the 12 year olds who in turn felt the effects stronger than the 15 year old participants in the study. The children’s affection for television was found to be related to almost all of the watching motives. In the study the words “entertainment” and “information” were not reported by the children as being a part of the study at any point.

Armstrong & A. Rubin’s 1989 study found that call-in listeners were often in situations where they could not communicate well with others due to either mobility, health, etc., listened to the radio station longer and ranked the program as being more important to them than listeners that did not participate. This could help to explain why the fans that do interact with the program act as if they have a stronger connection with the program and therefore must call in votes.

Parasocial Interaction

Parasocial Interaction is when a viewer feels that he or she has a connection to someone that they have never met, but have only observed on the television. (Horton & Wohl, 1956, A.

Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985). For example, certain viewers of daytime television have problems differentiating between the actors and the characters they portray. Levels vary from joining into Internet chat rooms and discussing the actors by their character names to assaulting the actor for the deeds that their character has committed. Most parasocial interaction studies have focused on two distinct areas of television (broadcast news and soap operas), although the phenomena has been exhibited elsewhere including primetime dramas, variety shows, talk radio,

8 etc. (Levy, 1979; A. Rubin et al., 1985; A. Rubin & Perse, 1987; Auter, 1992; Perse, 1990; A.

Rubin & Step, 2000). Perse & A. Rubin (1988) found that college students arranged their schedules to watch soap operas and formed groups to discuss them. The television personality is referred to as the persona. Researchers believe that habitual viewing and how the persona addresses the audience that leads viewers into formulating the connection.

Parasocial interaction is the term that was coined by Horton and Wohl in their 1956 ethnographical study that is used to describe the level of emotional attachment that a member of the viewing audience feels toward a performer they are watching. The original study concentrated on describing the audiences’ reaction to an actor on stage during a performance.

Audiences understand that when they are going to the theatre that there is a set order to the interaction. They arrive and then are drawn into the three dimensional fantasy worlds that are created with them. Interactions between the characters are predetermined, but interactions between a performer and the audience are variables. Also in the theatre, after the performance is finished, the participants return for a closing ceremony where the actors bow signifying the end of the interaction.

In regards to the television, several aspects of theatre are recreated through the use of camera angles and editing. Although audiences do see scenes where the actors seem to interact, several scenes are shot in a manner where the actor is directly facing the audience, a term in the theatre called “breaking the fourth wall.” When it comes to the modern media, a similar ortho- social relationship is constructed because the fourth wall is continuously broken and in effect non-present in reality television because of the ability to cast votes for the performers, i.e. the real people on the show and the constant addresses to the audience.

9 Horton & Wohl use the term personae to describe people on the radio or television, hosts,

newscasters, etc, whose purpose is a function of the media that would otherwise remain in

obscurity. The relationship develops in a similar manner that a normal friendship would through the use of observation. This is a pivotal principle when it comes to reality television because the audience is supposedly observing the personae in its natural habitat. One of the conceits of reality television is that their personae are taken to a different environment, but that they will resume their regular behavior patterns even as their environment is constantly changing.

Another aspect that leads to cementing the relationship is creating history and stability between the viewer and the personae. Television schedules are constantly in flux; however, when

a show has found a niche timeslot the networks keep the show plugged in. This practice adds to

the parasocial dimension because viewers are able to have a continuous relationship with the

personae. History is able to be created between the personae and the audience throughout the

current season and the seasons to come. Horton & Wohl theorize that this accumulated history is

as important to the success of the relationship as the actual observation of the personae. Creating

this history is a part of the relationship that furthers the relationship. It also allows for continuity

and expectation. Horton & Wohl conceptualize using the television program as a “healing

ceremony” (223). The researchers reported that the shows each featured some sort of praise

creating a social order, social solidarity and self confidence.

In originating the study A. Rubin, Perse, and Powell (1985) researched the audiences’

involvement with newscasters. In developing the scale, the researchers discovered that

loneliness was negatively related to interpersonal communication channel. As expected,

loneliness was positively related to television reliance. Television reliance due to loneliness was

related to parasocial interaction. No relationship between loneliness and parasocial interaction

10 was found. Nor was parasocial interaction related to a need to overcome loneliness by using non-media communication channels.

The Parasocial Interaction scale was a questionnaire developed and given to over 329 people (A. Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985). Based on the work of Horton & Wohl, the researchers focused on the subject of loneliness and found that the data that they gathered supported linking loneliness and parasocial interaction. While conducting their research, the researchers subdivided their hypotheses into two distinct camps: loneliness and media dependency. Other researchers (Rosengren & Windhal, 1972, Perse & Rubin, 1987, Babrow,

1988, et al) have also pinpointed the need to interact with others as a main cause for this phenomena and how the audience member becomes dependant upon the personae for any form of interaction.

In 1979, Levy found that parasocial interaction with newscasters is a common feature of the audience experience with television news and that it extends to other personae such as politicians. Levy used a sample of people that regularly watched the news and divided them into focus groups that discussed the news. The transcripts of those conversations were then analyzed for viewer attitudes toward television news programs. This generated a propositional inventory of 42 Uses and Gratifications items and a five point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The list of items was then dispersed to 240 adults that watched the news at least once a week.

This study offered varying insights regarding parasocial interaction, the main one being that the parasocial relationship shares attributes with primary and secondary social relations.

Although the relationship is clearly one-sided, the viewer believes that the relationship is real and believes that the object of their affection is actually responding to them by speaking to them

11 directly and through non-verbal signifiers. Repeated contact helps reinforce this behavior and

adds a sense of belonging to the viewers’ life because they know when they will interact with the

personae again.

Levy found that the higher the score, the more often the person was to watch the

program. Statistically, there was found to be a negative correlation between education and

parasocial interaction. The better educated viewer has less of a need for the relationship than

someone with impaired or deficient social interactions. Respondents answered that they felt a

close relationship with newscasters because they see them every day and felt that newscasters

were “something special.” Those that lived alone found comfort in hearing the voice of the

newscasters. While some respondents search for non-verbal clues and used those to formulate

their opinions on what the newscasters believed and then used the newscasters’ opinions to shape their own opinions on what they believed. The respondents also believed in the small talk and banter between news personae and likened it to how they respond to their friends. They also feel empathy toward the newscasters when they make a mistake.

A. Rubin & Step (2000) connected parasocial interaction with talk radio listening through the use of this study. Several of the results were on par with the results of researchers in the field of television. Attitudinal and behavioral effects were not predicted by interpersonal attraction.

Intentional and frequent listening of radio stations and a particular host were linked to parasocial interaction and exciting entertainment motivation. An extension of Levy (1979), found that the influence that newscasters and other personae have on the television waves extended to radio waves regarding a host as an important source of information and that the personae influenced attitudes.

The desire for interaction in parasocial relationships increases through more intentional

12 and regular listening. The findings intimate a difference between callers and listeners due to passive versus active strategies. Listeners can only observe the interaction, while callers have an invested interest in the relationship and formulate a relationship that is more inline with the standards of social interaction. Repeated encounters with their radio personae were found to be rewarding toward the listeners and callers.

Babrow (1987) examined student motives for watching soap operas. In his findings, he used a questionnaire in order to gauge motives. Babrow found that soap opera watching is viewed as an opportunity to socialize and also provides topics for discussion. Soap operas also provide viewers with companionship and a vicarious experience for the viewers. The content of the program was tested and of an average 5.10 reasons to watch a soap opera, 3.17 were reported as positive reasons to watch. The most reported reason to watch or avoid soap operas was time considerations. Parasocial interaction was ranked ninth while components of parasocial interaction were ranked higher. Diversion/escapism was viewed as the second most popular answer to watch. The content was ranked as third while the potential social interactions were rated as the fourth reason. Arousal was the fifth highest answer followed in order by learning, habitual-ritualistic viewing, and realism.

Auter’s study in 1992 found that parasocial interaction is related to program content. The study proved the validity of the scale created by A. Rubin, Perse, & Powell (1985). The

Parasocial Interaction Scale measures what it was intended to measure. Using a revised version of A. Rubin’s parasocial interaction questionnaire, 98 students were divided into two groups and viewed an edited episode of the situational comedy, The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show.

One group watched a low interaction version of the show, while the other group watched a high

interaction version. In comparing the two populations, the scores were higher with the group that

13 watched the high interaction version and for those that chose “George” as their favorite

character. In the high interaction versions, “George” was the character that broke the fourth wall

the most frequently. Auter findings tend to suggest that the process of parasocial interaction is

affected by the message attributes as much as by the viewer’s attitudes and affinity toward

personae.

R. Rubin and McHugh (1987) developed a questionnaire that combined and placed in

random order a 20-item adaptation of A. Rubin’s parasocial interaction scale (adapting PSI

Scale), with a modified version of the perceived importance scale (adapted from previous findings from Rubin, Levy, Windhal, & Perse), a 15-item interpersonal attraction scale

(developed by McCroskey and McCain), and a question asking the length of time subjects watched their favorite television performer. They found a low correlation between television exposure and parasocial interaction but none between exposure and attraction. They did find a connection between parasocial interaction and social, physical, and task attraction. The data also

concluded that attraction was not related to perceived relationship development importance.

There was also no strong evidence linking importance with social or task attraction but a mild

connection to physical attraction. Parasocial interaction was found to be related to perceived

importance. The researchers gather their data through the use of 303 questionnaires featuring A.

Rubin’s Parasocial Interaction Scale.

Perse & A. Rubin (1987) discovered that audience activity was a major predictor of

viewing satisfaction for soap opera viewers. The research team examined how prior expectations

and activity before, during and after watching the soap opera contribute to perceived satisfaction

with the program which influences consumer satisfaction and purchasing. Viewing attention

levels have been linked to agenda setting and knowledge gained from newscasts and to the sense

14 of friendship (PSI) audience members feel toward a persona. Escapism and exciting

entertainment were the most salient motives in watching the program. Parasocial Interaction and

attention were also found to be factors in satisfaction. Perceived realism and soap opera affinity

were not significant factors in program satisfaction which was contrary to Palmgreen &

Rayburn’s findings. Questionnaires were given to 460 students at Kent State University, but only

328 were soap watchers. The respondents to the survey were mostly female.

A. Rubin & Perse (1987a) examined daytime drama viewers and the role of motives,

attitudes, and audience activity in explaining the affective, cognitive, and behavioral

involvement. Their hypotheses were proven correct. Intercorrelations were found between the

motives, attitudes, activities, and involvement variables. The researchers established two

multivariate patterns. Parasocial interaction, postviewing cognition, and postviewing discussion

were found to be more salient viewing motivations (especially entertainment and social utility),

perceived realism, viewing intention, and attention. Parasocial interaction was not found to be

related to viewing for social utility and the lack of realism. Both social utility and lack of realism were related to postviewing discussion.

The researchers used a ten-item adaptation of A. Rubin’s Parasocial Interaction Scale questionnaire and had the respondents fill out how valid they found the statements to be in relation to their favorite daytime drama. In analysis the scores from the 10-item scale reflected similar data as the original 20-item version. Two scales were used to gauge soap opera attitudes.

The five-item affinity scale measured the perceived importance of watching favorite daytime

television serials using a five response Likert scale. The second scale was a six-item realism

scale which measured how realistic the drama portrayed real life using a five response Likert

scale. Cognitive and behavioral audience activity was measured before and during the program

15 based on intentionality or planning to watch one’s favorite soap opera, attention to the program

when watching, and engaging in distracting behaviors while watching. Lastly Levy and

Windahl’s (1984) four-item intentionality scale was a five-item Likert concerned with a person’s

behavioral intention.

The results dictate that viewing for exciting entertainment, for escapism and to pass the

time were the main motivations in viewing. Viewing for social utility, for voyeurism were less

dominant reasons for watching soap operas. Parasocial interaction was only modestly related to

involvement, but was found to be related to the exciting entertainment viewing motivation, soap

opera affinity, viewing intention, perceived realism, and viewing attention. The data set also

agrees with Blumler’s 1979 study that states activity plays an important intervening role in media

effects. All three involvement variables were intercorrelated. The study’s results agreed with

previous studies that sexual attraction and commonality motivated parasocial interaction.

The study also discovered an interesting oppositional relationship between parasocial

interaction and postviewing discussion. In postviewing discussion the content was paramount to the discussion, while content is not as important while viewing the program. The parasocial aspect was primarily inner-directed and concerned with the characters and their stories similar to romance novels.

Cohen (1997) respondents were asked to identify their favorite character and show and

then take a version of A. Rubin’s Parasocial Interaction Scale that was combined with the Collins

and Read (1990) adult Attachment Scale (AAS) as modified by Collins (1994). Cohen predicted

that for dating subjects the correlations between attachment dimensions and levels of PSR would

be greater than non-dating subjects. Of the three factors, results for the Depend factor of

attachment were as predicted. Attachment anxiety was related to parasocial interaction, although

16 comfort with intimacy was not.

Studies have been done regarding age as a factor in parasocial interaction (Miller, 1984,

A. Rubin, 1977). The data indicate that television viewing habits change through a person’s life cycle. (Children and the elderly are the most likely to exhibit signs of parasocial interaction.) It plateaus during adolescents then begins a steady decline toward middle age with a reemergence in the later years of a person’s life similar to Greenberg’s work with the British children. All of the researchers believe that as loneliness increases so does parasocial interaction because of limited social contact (A. Rubin, 1977).

There have also been studies in the differences of gender. Men have been found to create parasocial relationships when there are problems within their relationships. Women formulate these relationships when they feel the most secure in their relationships (Cohen, 1997).

The personae encourage this behavior by mimicking interpersonal communication through their address to the viewer and creating a verbal history complete with anecdotes of previous episodes (encounters) and encouraging the viewer to participate in the program (Horton

& Wohl, 1956, A. Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985). Researchers have determined that several of the viewers that contribute to parasocial communication do so through face-to-face encounters or through letter writing. The persona interacts with the audience both at home, and in some cases the studio audience, in a manner which causes the viewer to interact in an appropriate manner

(Rosengren & Windahl, 1972).

A. Rubin, Perse, & Powell have focused upon this “active bonding” and has discovered that the personae must be perceived by the viewer as being real and similar (1985). These tactics are used to perpetuate the bond between the viewers and the personae with the sheer belief that a deeper relationship will emerge. A level of attraction and empathy are also seen as catalysts to a

17 deepening parasocial relationship (Horton & Wohl, 1956, Cohen, 1997, R. Rubin & McHugh,

1987).

The various studies have focused primarily on receiving self reported data through the use of surveys. Although the originating study used ethnographic accounts of the interaction, A.

Rubin, Perse, & Powell (1985) developed a scale that is currently in use for analyzing data collected in this field. Other researchers have used the scale in their experiments to test the validity of the scale and have determined that the scale is valid (Auter, 1992,).

When it comes to parasocial interaction and differences in gender, the data indicates that women use parasocial relationships as a jumping off point to expand their relationships while men conversely, use parasocial relationships more when their anxiety level toward future relationships. Dating women were found to show a relationship between parasocial interaction and attachment security. Attachment anxiety was found to be related to the intensity of parasocial relations.

Two groups were created based on the subjects’ dating status. The results were then coded into same sex as the character or opposite sex than the character. The data was also coded depending on the type of character (real, fictional, or animated) and the type of show the character was from (reality-based, comedy, drama, animated).

Reality Television & Parasocial Interaction

Reality television is an amalgamation of both forms of personae of newscasters and characters. In its various incarnations, reality television strives to push past the boundaries of the fourth wall as described by Horton & Wohl. Reality television’s survival depends upon an engaged audience and because of that it harnesses the key elements of newscasts, soap operas,

18 variety shows, and talk shows in order to generate ratings. Through the use of the levels of observation the programs have excruciatingly created an easy-access, active participant formula.

Before each episode begins, a 30-second recap of what has happened in a previous episode is shown. The title credits of the show also feature images of the participants with their first names, mimicking how most people interact with each other by referencing only the first name. The network has worked with camera angles in order to have the personae directly engaging the audience. The audience is spoken to directly while the personae answer questions that they are asked by off-camera production assistants creating a history between the audience and the personae. Networks have become savvy to this information and have begun to recycle their own created stars. CBS used Mariano and Brkich-Mariano through a total of three series and one special (Survivor, Survivor: All-Stars, The Amazing Race 7, and Rob & Amber Get

Married). ABC recently reused its most popular reality television star Trista Rehn-Sutter in The

Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Trista & Ryan Get Married, and Dancing with the Stars.

In addition to creating history between the audience and the personae, a version of

Horton & Wohl’s healing ceremony is used in every program. Horton & Wohl’s research showed that several of the shows that were on-air during their initial study used a healing ceremony of sorts. This trend continues in modern day television through the use of the judges, call in votes, fan signs, and more that are heavily featured in reality television shows. One of the most notable judges, American Idol’s Paula Abdul, has re-branded her career as being a

“cheerleader” for contestants on her show. Conversely, record executive Simon Cowell has created a career by being the opposite of Abdul on the same show.

The shows become extremely vital toward the viewer – similar to the way listeners are to actively call-in to a talk radio station, or respondents are toward a television game show/series

19 (Armstrong & Rubin, 1989; Horton & Wohl, 1957). During the construction of the interactive

program a contract between the audience and the show is created. If the audience does not

participate in the program then they must accept that their favorite persona may be eliminated

from the show. The audience must be proactive in the defense of their personal favorite or let

their “friend” down. Controversies over voting on the interactive programs have been a part of

the industry since the first season of American Idol when judge and fan favorite Tamyra Gray

was eliminated from the top three (Ryan, 2002) to the contemporary complaints over Kelly

Monanco’s victory on Dancing with the Stars, which lead the network to create a dance off

special (Ryan, 2005).

Attraction and gender have also become a modern component of the reality television

shows. The majority of the reality television shows deal with romance and dating of some sort.

The most popular franchise of romance reality television has been The Bachelor and its spin-off

The Bachelorette. After Rehn-Sutter was rejected during the first season of The Bachelor, the

studio was deluged with letters from male viewers asking them to send their personal

information to Rehn-Sutter which falls in line with Cohen’s results regarding single men and

parasocial relationships (1997).

Adweek Magazine reports $660,000 will be spent per spot on a Tuesday night

performance of American Idol. A spot on the Wednesday night results show, where a contestant

is eliminated, is slightly higher at $705,000. In an era of digital cable and TiVo, many

consumers have created an escape route from their commercial-laden entertainment by fast forwarding through the programming breaks. Product placement has also become a component

of this type of program. This consumer behavior has caused broadcasters to revert to their

broadcasting agenda of the early days of television. The term “soap opera” became synonymous

20 with daytime television drama because the dramas were sprinkled with products that the characters would use in a scene, most notably soap. The tradition slowly fell out of favor, but is currently enjoying a renaissance due to advertising executives creating corporate sponsorships and product placement deals.

This situation inadvertently creates spokespersons out of the contestants on the show.

Product placement is not replacing commercials but acting in tandem with them. According to an article by Naomi Aoki published in the Boston Globe, “Coca-Cola Co. reportedly paid $13 million for its presence on Fox’ hit reality show American Idol and Sears, Roebuck and Co. reportedly paid $1 million to be the chief sponsor of ABC’s reality show Extreme Makeover:

Home Edition.”

Advertising Age published an article by Wayne Friedman that “an integrated marketing package costs $26 million dollars.” The networks place the products as an intricate part of the show so viewers have no choice but to be bombarded by the product. Advertisers are paying record numbers for advertising time during these shows. In the case of Survivor, the audience watches the starving, unclean, lethargic contestants suddenly become energized over a reward challenge that involves anything from a new car to a sleeve of Pringles. On American Idol, the contestants are held in a room called “the Red Room” which is laden with Coca-Cola products, are featured in music videos that all involve a Ford vehicle, and may be eliminated by passive viewers that do not text the word “vote” on their Cingular wireless phones. Exclusive show content can also be sent to viewers that use the certain phone.

Both the networks and the personae encourage the parasocial relationships by continuing relationships with each other after the series has ended. Several of the personae, in addition to appearing on different shows, create websites. For example, Amber Brkich-Mariano’s (winner

21 of Survivor: All-Star Edition and second place finisher for The Amazing Race 7) Web site has a

section where her fans can leave comments for her. Sample comments include:

Mon Sep 12 06:32:24 2005 From: Nikko, Manila, Philippines Hi, Amber! Happy belated Birthday!!! I am so proud that you've won Survivor All Stars and you've won 2nd Place in The Amazing Race 7! Congratulations to your winnings and marriages! Your wedding ceremony is so wonderful. Also, you are my favorite team in both shows! I also think about you! Do you think you deserve it? I would like to wish you all happiness forever and lots of showers and blessings. God bless you, Amber!

Sun Sep 11 12:18:08 2005 From: monica, ontario hey Amber, happy balated birthday. I thought you and rob looked wonderful on your wedding day. especially you amber, you looked gorgerous. I love you lots, God bless, Amber and rob

Sat Sep 10 19:49:13 2005 From: Michelle.Ann.Ren, China Hi,Amber.My English name is Michelle.Ann.Ren.I'm a fan of you.I like you very much.Amber Best wishesto you and Rob.I want to make a friend to you .If you see the massage please write to me .My E-mail is (email address removed)

Although such anecdotal evidence strongly suggests reality TV viewers form parasocial

interaction with the contestants, this has yet to be tested empirically. The purpose of this study is

to extend the work that A. Rubin and colleague have done in the areas of soap operas and

newscasters into the realm of reality television. We are predicting that all the hypotheses related

toward parasocial interaction from the A. Rubin, Perse, and Powell’s 1985 study will be

supported. Interestingly, some of A. Rubin’s original hypothesis did not receive support but we

believe that society has changed in important ways since then.

Faith Popcorn wrote in her book, Clicking : 17 Trends That Drive Your Business--And

Your Life, that one of the current trends in our society is “Cocooning.” She also wrote about it in her first book, The Popcorn Report. Cocooning is the trend of isolationism of the American

22 public. We can see evidence of this through the use of technology that did not exist during the

time of the original study including the Internet and personal sound systems. The sales of

products such as mobile phones, mp3 players, Walkmans, et al continue to grow every year. At

the time of the original study, television sets were seen to be a luxury that not everyone could

afford. However, more than 20 years later television sets are commonplace. Studies estimate

that there are three televisions per household in America alone. The statistics regarding the

Internet are not that different. It is because of these current trends that the results will show a connection between loneliness and parasocial interaction and using the mass media in order to satisfy a need for social interaction.

Due to the changes in the American society since the original A. Rubin, Perse, & Powell

1985 study and the literature that has expanded the research of the study, the Parasocial

Interaction Scale will be adaptable toward the genre of reality television. This study will focus primarily on the hypotheses dealing with parasocial interaction. Also, there will be a strong correlation between loneliness and parasocial interaction. In the original study, the research team identified that the reason that their third and fourth hypothesis failed could have been because, although the participants exhibited behavioral characteristics of loneliness, they did not report themselves as being lonely. Due to the current self analytical social climate this study will set out to show that this will indeed change, proving that:

(H1) Loneliness and parasocial interaction with a favorite reality television personae will

be related positively for men.

(H2) Loneliness and parasocial interaction with a favorite reality television personae will

be related negatively for women.

23 (H3) Parasocial Interaction and using interpersonal functional alternatives to loneliness

will be related positively.

(H4) Parasocial Interaction and exposure will be related positively.

(H5) The more that a person is motivated to watch for entertainment, the more Parasocial

Interaction will exist.

(H6) Parasocial interaction will increase with the age of the respondent.

In addition to reexamining A. Rubin, Perse, & Powell’s study, this research will generate information regarding potential spokesperson selection and product placement. In line with

Levy’s study (1979) where he found that parasocial interaction with newscasters and politicians can influence the opinions of viewers:

(R1) Will parasocial interaction with a reality television personae influence the viewers’

opinion of a product?

(R2) Does Parasocial Interaction vary according to the reasons why viewers watch reality

television?

24 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants will be solicited using four distinct Web sites devoted to reality television:

Survivorfever.net, RealityTVWorld.com, Orwellproject.com, and Realitynewsonline.com. All participants will be asked to electronically sign a statement that they are 18 years or older.

Survivor is broadcast in several different countries and because the survey will be placed on the

Internet, participants could be from all over the world. Participants will be asked to complete an on-line survey that will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.

Hypothesis Testing

Ivan Avila, a private contractor, was hired to construct and maintain SurvivorThesis.com.

Participants will be asked to input their email addresses in order to verify that they took the survey only once. The first section of the Web site complies with the IRB standards of notifying the participants of the purpose of the study and that they will not be compensated in any manner.

The Web site asks for the demographical information of the participants. It collects data based upon gender, race, country, etc. The respondents are then asked on average how many hours of television do you watch a week and on average how many hours of reality television do you watch a week?

The first and second hypotheses examine parasocial interaction and loneliness.

Parasocial Interaction will be measured using modified questions from the 10-item Parasocial

Interaction Scale by asking respondents to complete a five scale Likert survey. The respondents would choose between strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree. The

25 questions were modified to ask about the television show Survivor and not the participants’

favorite television personality or newscaster.

The questions have been adapted in the following manner: “I feel sorry for my favorite

reality television personality when they make a mistake. The reality television personalities make

me feel comfortable, as if I am with friends. I see my favorite reality television personality as a

natural, down-to-earth person. I look forward to watching my favorite reality television

personality on television. If my favorite reality television personality appeared on another TV

program I would watch that program. When my favorite reality television personality tells a

story, they seem to understand the kinds of things I want to know. If there were a story about my

favorite reality television personality in a newspaper or a magazine I would read it. I miss seeing

my favorite reality television personality when they are no longer on the show. I would like to

meet my favorite reality television personality. I find my favorite reality television personality attractive.” The scale has been shown to have an .88 Cronbach alpha.

Loneliness will be measured using 10 questions from the third version of the UCLA

Loneliness Scale. Some answers are reverse coded so that a higher number represents a greater level of loneliness. The questions asked are: How often do you feel that you lack companionship? How often do you feel that you have a lot in common with the people around you? How often do you feel close to people? How often do you feel left out? How often do you feel that no one really knows you well? How often do you feel isolated from others? How often do you feel that there are people who really understand you? How often do you feel that people are around you but not with you? How often do you feel that there are people you can talk to?

How often do you feel that there are people that you can turn to? Version three has an alpha

level that varies between .89 to .94 depending on the age group.

26 The results will be tested using a correlation between the Parasocial Interaction Scale and

the UCLA Loneliness Scale. They will then be separated according to the respondent’s gender.

For hypothesis one, a positive relationship is expected between parasocial interaction and

loneliness among men. For hypothesis two, a negative correlation is expected between

parasocial interaction and loneliness among women.

The third hypothesis examines Parasocial Interaction and interpersonal functional

alternatives to loneliness. Parasocial Interaction will be measured using the same scale developed by A. Rubin (1983) as described in hypothesis one. Interpersonal functional alternatives to loneliness will be measured using a scale created for this study. Respondents are asked to envision a scenario that they are lonely and then answer the following statements using a five point Likert scale that ranges between strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree. “If I were lonely I would call or talk to friends. If I were lonely I would call or talk to family. If I were lonely I would email or Instant Message friends. If I were lonely I would email or Instant Message family. If I were lonely I would surf the Internet. If I were lonely I would read a magazine. If I were lonely I would do a household chore. If I were lonely I would listen to the radio. If I were lonely I would go to work.” The fourth hypothesis examines

Parasocial Interaction and exposure. Parasocial Interaction will be measured using the same scale developed by A. Rubin (1983). Exposure will be measured by asking respondents to report how many hours a week that they watch television and how many hours a week do they watch reality television.

The fifth hypothesis examines the relationship between Parasocial Interaction and the likelihood a person will watch reality television to be entertained. Parasocial Interaction will be

27 measured using the modified 10-point Likert scale created by A. Rubin as described in the first hypothesis.

Motivations for watching entertainment will be measured using the entertainment sub- scale from the Television Motives Scale. The scale was created by Greenberg and then adapted by A. Rubin. This study will use the same scale that A. Rubin used (1983) although the difference being the order in which the questions are presented. Respondents are asked to rate how much they agree with a statement in a 5-point Likert scale. The statements range from (5) exactly, (4) a lot, (3) somewhat, (2) not much, or (1) not at all. The statements are asked in regards to entertainment are: Because it entertains me. Because it amuses me. Because it’s enjoyable. The alpha levels for the different categories (Relaxation, Companionship, Habit, Pass

Time, Entertainment, Social Interaction, Information, Arousal, and Escape) range from .68 to

.87.

The sixth hypothesis examining age and parasocial interaction will be measured using the modified 10-point Likert scale created by A. Rubin as described in the first hypothesis in comparison to the age of the respondents.

In regards to the first research question which ask the questions regarding spokespersons and media usage, respondents will be asked to answer questions using a five point Likert scale.

The respondents would choose between strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree. The questions asked are: “I would stop watching the show if my favorite reality television personality were voted off. I would buy a product my favorite person on the show endorses.

Watching my favorite reality television person enjoying a product makes me want to sample the product. My favorite reality television personality would endorse a product that they trust. I trust the products that my favorite reality television personality would endorse. I would read a

28 book written by my favorite reality television personality.” A correlation will be run between the

Spokesperson Affinity Scale and the Parasocial Interaction Scale.

The second research question asks whether or not motivations for watching television cause a change in the level of parasocial interaction. This question will be studied using the 10- item Parasocial Interaction Scale as described in the first hypothesis and the Television Motives

Scale as described in the third hypothesis. All 27 questions from the Television Viewing and

Motives Scale will be asked. The questions asked are to agree with the following statements starting with: “I watch Reality Television: So I can be with other members of the family or friends who are watching. Because it relaxes me. Because it gives me something to occupy my time. Because it’s enjoyable. Because I just like to watch. Because it’s a pleasant rest. So I won’t have to be alone. Because it entertains me. When there’s no one else to talk to or be with.

Because it makes me feel less lonely. Because it amuses me. Because it’s something to do when friends come over. So I can talk with other people about what’s on. Because it peps me up.

Because it helps me learn things about myself and others. So I can get away from the rest of the family or others. So I could learn about what could happen to me. Because it’s a habit, just something I do. When I have nothing better to do. Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored. Because it’s exciting. So I can get away from what I’m doing. Just because it is there. So I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done before. Because it’s thrilling.

Because it allows me to unwind. So I can forget about school, work, or other things.” The results will be tested using a correlation between the Parasocial Interaction Scale and the different sections of the Television Motives Scale to determine if parasocial interaction varies by motivation for viewing.

29 Once the survey is completed, the participants must then click “submit” for the data to be saved. They were then directed to the second page of the Web site that debriefed them. The data collected from the Web site is stored and compiled using a database program that converts the information into Windows Excel and SPSS.

30

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

The population of this study was 444. Respondents’ ages varied from 18 to 81 (Mean =

34.23), but 56% of the respondents were at or below mean age (Table 1). Of the respondents, 87

of the respondents were male while 348 of the respondents were female. Respondents self-

reported that they watch an average of 18.22 hours of television programming a week. They also

reported that they watch an average of 4.65 hours of reality television a week (Table 1).

Respondents reported moderate levels of parasocial interaction with an average of 24.18 on a 40-

point scale (Table 2). There were only minor differences by gender. Loneliness was reported to

have low levels with an average of 8.66 on a 27-point scale (Table 2). There were only minor

differences by gender. Respondents reported moderate levels on the Television Watching

Motives Scale with an average of 43.29 on a combined 108 point scale (Table 2). Individually

the scales are ranked on a 12-point scale. On the Interpersonal Functional Alternatives scale,

respondents reported moderate levels of 24.13 on a 40-point scale (Table 2). Respondents

reported low levels of affinity on The Spokesperson Affinity Scale with an average score of 8.11

on a 30-point scale (Table 2).

Respondents were asked 10 questions (Table 3) regarding from the Parasocial Interaction

Scale (Alpha .77) to determine their personal level of parasocial interaction. The possible scores

for this scale ranged from 0 and 40. The mean for this scale was 24.18 (S.D. = 6.52). On

average, 68.2% felt that they would feel sorry for their favorite reality television personality if he

or she made a mistake on the show. Of the 444 respondents, 36.7% felt that their favorite reality

television personality made them feel as comfortable as if they were with their friends. When asked if they thought of their favorite reality television personality as a natural, down-to-earth

31 person, 60.1% of the respondents agreed. The statement “I look forward to seeing their favorite

reality television personality on television” was agreed to by 82.2% of respondents. Over half of

the respondents would watch another television program that their favorite reality television

personality was appearing on. Almost half of the respondents, (47.1%) were undecided when asked if they felt that when their favorite reality television personality tells a story that they understand the kinds of details that they would want to know. On average, 81.5% of respondents would read an article discussing their favorite reality television personality. Respondents agreed

(61.4%) that they miss their favorite reality television personality when they are no longer on the show. Interestingly enough, only 36.9% of respondents would like to meet their favorite reality television personality and only 49.4% found their favorite to be attractive.

When the genders were separated to determine their personal level of parasocial interaction of the male respondents 59.1% and 71.3% of female respondents felt that they would feel sorry for their favorite reality television personality if he or she made a mistake on the show

(male respondents’ answers Table 5; female respondents’ answers Table 6). Almost half of the male respondents (42.1%) answered that their favorite reality television personality made them feel as comfortable as if they were with their friends while only 35.8% of the female respondents agreed with the statement. When asked if they thought of their favorite reality television personality as a natural, down-to-earth person, 55.7% of men agreed while 61.9% of women agreed. When asked if they look forward to seeing their favorite reality television personality on television, 73.9% of men and 86.4% of women agreed. Almost half of the male respondents

(49.4%) would watch another television program that their favorite reality television personality was appearing on in comparison to 53.4% of women that would tune in to another series. When asked if they felt that when their favorite reality television personality tells a story that they

32 understand the kinds of details that they would want to know both men (47.7%) and women

(47.1) were undecided. On average, an overwhelming 82.7% of male respondents would read an

article discussing their favorite reality television personality while 81.6% of females would read

the article. When their favorite reality television personality is no longer on the show 61.5% of

male respondents and 60.9% of female respondents miss him or her. Interestingly enough, only

34.7% of male respondents would like to meet their favorite reality television personality while

48.3% of female respondents would like to meet him or her. The last question dealt with

attraction to their favorite reality television personality, over half (51.7%) of the men found their

favorite reality television personality to be attractive in comparison to the 47.2% of women that found their favorite to be attractive.

Questions from the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale were used to measure for loneliness

(alpha .85) (Table 6). Loneliness was measured on a scale that ranged from 0 to 27. The mean for this scale was 8.66 (S.D. 4.31). Certain questions in the UCLA Loneliness Scale are reversed coded so the results generated may differ from the actual answer that the respondents felt that they were selecting. Respondents reported that they often feel that they do not have a lot in common with the people around them (89.6%). An alarming 91.9% rarely to never feel that they often feel close to people. The combined answers all showed that 48.2% of respondents rarely felt left out while, 43.5% often feel that no one really knows them well. When asked about isolation, 65.3% of respondents said that they rarely to never feel isolated but ironically, 83.8% said that the rarely to never feel that they are understood by the people around them. The results also indicated that 45.5% felt that there are people around them but not with them. When asked

how often they felt that there are people they can talk to 91.4% responded rarely to never.

Shockingly, 6.7% said that there are people that they can always to sometimes turn to.

33 When the results were divided by gender (male respondents’ answers Table 7; female respondents’ answers Table 8), an alarming 88.6% of male respondents reported that they often feel that they do not have a lot in common with the people around them while 90.4% of female respondents feel the same. When asked if they feel that they often feel close to people, 90.9% of

men and 91.5% of women answered rarely to never. Male respondents (34.1%) felt left out,

which was a smaller percentage than women (44.9%) for the same variable. Companionship was

examined through the question: “How often do you feel that no one really knows you well?” to

which 44.3% of males responded favorably in comparison to the 52.0% of women that answered

favorably. When asked about isolation, 67.8% of men and 63.3% of women answered that they

rarely to never feel isolated but ironically, 75% of men and 86.4% of women said that the rarely

to never feel that they are understood by the people around them. Half of the male respondents

and a little over half (50.7%) of women felt that there are people around them but not with them.

When asked how often they felt that there are people they can talk to 88.7% of men and 92.4%

of women responded rarely to never. Both genders reported at 1.1% that there are people that they can always to sometimes turn to.

Questions from the newly created Interpersonal Functional Alternatives scale (alpha .73)

asked respondents how likely they would be willing to turn to interpersonal functional

alternatives if they felt lonely (Table 9). Scores on the scale ranged from 0 to 40 with a mean of

24.13 (S.D. 6.02). The data indicates that 84.3% would call or talk to friends while 66.7% would

email or Instant Message friends. Respondents would also turn to family members in droves.

85.1% would call or talk to family and 57.2% would email or Instant Message family. Turning

toward certain media outlets (Internet 65.8%; Magazines 62.8%; Radio 51.4%) was a common

selection however; respondents also said that 47.8% would not go to the movies if they felt

34 lonely.52.7% would do a household chore while 54.7% would not go to work.

All respondents were asked all of the questions of the 27 item Television Watching

Motives Scale in random order to prevent an ordinal effect (Table 10) Scores ranged from 0 to

12 on all of the subcategories. Scores on the entertainment subset from the Television Motives

Scale (alpha = .90) had a mean of 9.52 (S.D. 2.63) (Table 2). Respondents agreed that they watch reality television because it entertains them (78.8%); it’s enjoyable (77%); and because it amuses them (75.5%).

In regards to the relaxation subset, respondents somewhat agreed that reality television provided a pleasant rest (43.5%), that it somewhat relaxed them (38.3%), and that it somewhat allowed them to unwind (41.0%). Respondents disagreed when the questions revolved around companionship: 77.9% stated that they do not watch reality television so that they won’t have to be alone, feel less lonely (78.2%), or when no one else is around to talk to or be with (64.2%).

Under the subcategory of habit, 48.4% agreed that they watched reality television because they liked to watch it. Respondents only somewhat agreed with the statements that watching reality television was a habit (35.1%) and because it is there (31.5%).

In the pass time subset, respondents disagreed to the statement watching reality television because they have nothing better to do (34.5%) and because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored (31.8%). They also responded that they watch reality television because it gives me something to occupy my time (40.1%). The subset of social interaction faired in a similar manner, with 27.5% somewhat agreeing that they watch reality television so they can be with other members of the family or friends who are watching (27.5%) and so that they could talk with other people about what’s going on (37.2%). Respondents did not agree with the statement that they watch Reality Television because it’s something to do when friends come over (46.4%).

35 Respondents disagreed to the questions in the learning subcategory of the scale. The

statements were I watch reality television: so I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done

before (43.5%); because it helps me learn things about myself and others (33.8%); so I could

learn about what could happen to me (65.8%). Because it peps me up was a statement under the

arousal category where most respondents replied not at all (32.9%). Respondents did somewhat

agree with the statements that I watch reality television because it’s exciting (39.4) and it’s

thrilling (37.6%). The final subcategory of escape fared on the same level as the pass time

category. Only 32.0% of the respondents answered that they watched reality television to forget

about school, work, or other things. However, they responded negatively to the statements that

they watched to get away from the rest of the family or others (71.2%) and from what they are doing (41.0%).

The newly created spokesperson scale which was found to have an alpha level of .78.

Scores on the 6 item scale can range from 0 to 30. The mean for this scale was found to be 8.11

(S.D. 3.60) (Table 2). Questions from this scale asked respondents about the viability of their favorite reality television star as a spokesperson (Table 11). When asked if they would buy a product my favorite person on the show endorses, 53.6% disagreed with the statement.

Respondents also negatively responded (60.1%) toward the statement that watching their favorite reality television personality enjoying a product makes me want to sample the product.

Trust became a big factor with respondents with 56.5% of respondents not believing that their favorite reality television personality would only endorse a product that the reality television personality trusts. Over half of the respondents (58.3%) answered that they do not trust the products that their favorite reality television personality would endorse. When asked if they would read a book written by my favorite reality television personality 42.6% were undecided.

36 Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be a positive relationship between loneliness and parasocial interaction with a favorite reality television personae in men. To test this hypothesis, a

Pearson correlation was performed and was found to not be significant. The second hypothesis posited that loneliness and parasocial interaction with a favorite reality television persona will be related negatively for women. To test this hypothesis, a correlation was performed and was found to not be significant. Interesting to mention, when a correlation was performed between parasocial interaction and loneliness without separating the genders the score showed a significant correlation (r = .11). The third hypothesis theorized that parasocial interaction and using interpersonal functional alternatives to loneliness will be related positively. A Pearson correlation was run comparing the two yielded no significant difference (p >.5).

The fourth hypothesis examined the potentially positive relationship between parasocial interaction and exposure. A Pearson correlation was performed and found significant correlation between parasocial interaction and both how many hours a week a person watch television (r =

.18) and how many hours of reality television (r = .25) was viewed a week. The fifth hypothesis correctly stated that the more that a person is motivated to watch for entertainment, the more

Parasocial Interaction will exist (r = .52). The last hypothesis attempted to create a relationship between parasocial interaction and the age of the respondent. It was believed that the relationship between the two would increase with age. A Pearson correlation was run and the data determined that there was not a significant difference between the two (p > .05).

A Pearson correlation was run between parasocial interaction and the Spokesperson scale

(r = .55). The first research questions postulating a relationship between parasocial interaction with a reality television personae influence the viewers’ opinion of a product was found to be significant at the .01 level. Concurrently parasocial interaction was also a factor in respondents’

37 decision to purchase or sample a product. The second research question examining if the levels of parasocial interaction vary according to the reasons why viewers watch reality television a correlation was conducted against the other eight categories defined by the Television Watching

Motives Scale and the Parasocial Interaction Scale. In the correlation a significant correlation at the .01 level between parasocial interaction and relaxation (r = 0.47); companionship (r = 0.15); habit (r = 0.23); social interaction (r = 0.24); information (r = 0.29); arousal (r = 0.62); and escape (r = 0.21) (Table 12). The only variable that was found to not have significance was pass time (r = -0.02).

38

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

This study was a rreplication of the A. Rubin, Perse, and Powell (1985) study that

showed a connection between parasocial interaction and newscasters. The study was adapted to see if the concept of parasocial interaction could be applied to reality television. Simultaneously,

the study also examined parasocial interaction and its possible connections to loneliness,

interpersonal functional alternatives, television motives, exposure, gender, age, and spokesperson selection. The data for this study was collected on the Internet website www.Survivorthesis.com. More than 450 respondents attempted the survey, but only 444 were viable due to incomplete data, repetition, and lack of proof of age.

When the original research team of A. Rubin, Perse, and Powell (1985) attempted a correlation between loneliness and parasocial interaction, they did not find a correlation. This

study was not in agreement with the original findings in regard to the lack of connection between loneliness and parasocial interaction. The current study found a correlation between the two.

However, there was no correlation found between parasocial interaction and interpersonal functional alternatives. The more parasocial interaction that a person reported, the more likely the person was to watch television in general and the more likely they were to watch reality television specifically. They were also more likely to purchase a product written by or about their favorite reality television personality, or watch another program that featured them. Most viewers are motivated to watch reality television because of arousal, entertainment, and relaxation. Also, the more parasocial interaction that was reported the lonelier they feel.

The population of this study was not a standard convenience sample; however, it did exclude certain members of the population. The goal of this study was to examine members of a

39 very specific segment of the television viewing public, for lack of a better term, the fanatics of the genre. The term “fanatics” is used to represent the members of the television populace that not only watch the program, but that are motivated to create communities based on discussing the content of the program and or the personae. It was a research goal to gather a large enough population of this specific type of viewer to have a valid study. That is why the Internet was used to solicit respondents.

Interestingly enough, a level of parasocial interaction was detected, but not to the extreme that one would expect to exist within “fanatics” of the show and its personae. This point is best illustrated by examining the respondents’ answers toward the questions. The respondents did answer favorably toward the parasocial interaction scale questions but the answer “agree” elicited more responses than “strongly agree” on every answer. Most of the evidence and encounters between die hard fanatics and the personae has been largely anecdotal. It could be that even though there are “true” fanatics of the show, they are actually a small part of the population. Although there have been extreme cases that were documented within the realm of soap operas, it does not appear to be as prevalent in reality television.

In examining the levels of parasocial interaction by separating the genders, it is important to note that the populations have similar levels of parasocial interaction although the way that the score is calculated is different. For example, when asked if they felt that they would feel sorry for their favorite reality television personality if he or she made a mistake on the show, 59.1% of men and 71.3% of female respondents agreed with that statement. One possible cause could be the roles that our society deems appropriate for each gender to have. Because women are expected to be caregivers, they feel more compassionate toward a stranger or character, which is reflective of the answer. Also of interest is that more women (48.3%) than men (34.7%) would

40 like to meet their favorite reality television personality. This could be seen as a parallel between

the parasocial interaction realms of reality television and soap operas. In the soap opera

populous, ABC holds an annual event where fans can meet their favorite soap opera stars. This

event, called Super Soap Weekend, generates media publicity and higher park attendance at

Disney MGM Studios. It would be of a benefit to both researchers and executives to further

examine these gender differences and different areas of parasocial interaction.

Horton & Wohl’s study (1956) has an historical aspect that is relevant to this study. They

found audiences build a friendship with a television personae in a similar way as they do with

people that they have physical interaction. The reason is because there is a history of

“interaction” reinforced because respondents said that they would watch another show that their favorite reality television stars appeared on. This is best exemplified by the ratings spikes that shows such as Survivor: All Stars, The Amazing Race (Rob and Amber Mariano of Survivor),

Days of Our Lives (Kyle Brandt of the Real World: Chicago), and One Life To Live (Matthew

Metzger of American Idol) exhibited after recycling reality television personalities. Even shows such as General Hospital, which heavily featured Kelly Monaco before her reign on Dancing

With The Stars, experienced a ratings increase after her appearances on the dancing show.

Dancing With The Stars is currently receiving its highest ratings ever with parasocial interaction goldmines such as talk show host / soap opera actress Lisa Rinna (Soap Talk, Days of Our Lives,

Melrose Place) and pop star / reality television personality Drew Lachey (98° Degrees,

Newlyweds). Also noteworthy is the ratings juggernaut American Idol, which is receiving the highest ratings of any other television show combined, and features reality television personalities Paula Abdul, Randy Jackson, Ryan Seacrest, and Simon Cowell.

41 The question begs to be answered if exposure causes more parasocial interaction, or if

parasocial interaction causes more exposure. The data generated from this study signifies that

the two variables were correlated. It is my belief that exposure causes parasocial interaction

which leads to more exposure because it creates a historical reference for the audience to connect

with. For example, the case must be made with Trista Rehn Sutter, the star of the Bachelor and

Bachelorette. The first Bachelor was a series where 25 women competed to marry a man of

substantial means through a series of dates. The women were eliminated from the dating pool

through a rose ceremony. Rehn became a front runner of the first Bachelor and eventually went

on to be the runner-up on the series. More and more publications began to cover the show and

the romances on it. During this time, ABC became inundated with mail from male viewers

questioning about Rehn and telling the executives of the show how they would be the perfect

match for her. The mail generated the idea of having a spin-off of the show entitled The

Bachelorette.

The premise of the show was the same as The Bachelor except with Rehn as the decider

of who gets to remain on the show. Early on the show, Trista met a young firefighter named

Ryan Sutter who had watched the previous show. During their courtship, media scrutiny intensified on the show and its first couple. Magazines dedicated full center spreads to the pair

and their burgeoning relationship. This led to more exposure which was capped off with the announcement of the pair’s televised nuptials.

With the announcement, the exposure doubled and Rehn became a fixture on the covers of several different magazines simultaneously. From TV Guide to Modern Bride magazine,

Rehn was in the forefront of the popular culture spectrum. The predecessor to the Brkich-

Mariano nuptials, the Rehn-Sutter fete spawned the etiquette guide to how to handle a televised

42 wedding of reality couples by generating a series of specials leading up to the actual wedding ceremony. The wedding was a ratings success. More people watched the affair than watched the wedding of England’s Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. The audience watched their entire relationship from its inception on The Bachelor to its satisfactory fairy tale wedding.

After the successful wedding, the pair retired from the public spotlight and focused on building a home together in Colorado. The stories on them slowly began to grind to a stop with occasional pieces about them on their first wedding anniversary. Rehn-Sutter remerged after a drought of exposure to compete in the interactive series Dancing With The Stars where she faced off against several other celebrities from different aspects of entertainment that have all been tested for parasocial interaction. They include Monaco (soap operas), John O’Hurly (soap operas and serialized comedy series), Joey McIntire (music and theatre), Rachel Hunter (supermodel) and Evander Holyfield (Athlete and Spokesperson). The celebrity’s score would be comprised of equal parts of the combined judges’ score and the public vote. The celebrity with the lowest combination would then be eliminated. With little to no exposure, she was the first person eliminated, even though Sutter had a background in formal dance training and was a Miami Heat

Dancer. Sutter’s combined judges’ score was actually higher than the Champion Kelly Monaco

(http://abc.go.com/primetime/dancing/bios/trista_sutter.html). This same type of history and exposure effect can be further exemplified in the careers of Ashlee Simpson, Jessica Simpson,

Nick Lachey, Ashley Parker Angel and Paris Hilton. All have gained success due in large part to their participation in a reality television show.

In conducting the research on reality television personae, several comments were made by the personae themselves confessing that they were “big fans” of other reality television personae. Recently, Survivor: Guatemala capitalized on this concept by inviting two popular

43 former castaways to compete against a new group of castaways that had never met each other.

The new castaways reacted very positively toward the returning castaways – even though they had yet to be introduced to them. It would be interesting to see the results of comparing a group of former reality television personae in contrast to their audience. Future researchers should also see if there is a difference in scores on the PSI scale between fans of reality television and soap operas.

Attraction was an area of concern in tabulating the data because the respondents’ answers did not fall in line with what the experts had predicted and the canonical evidence. The literature argues that attractiveness is a precursor for parasocial interaction and yet the levels were not present at that extreme level. This situation could be because the population that participated was not as fanatical as expected or it could be that the standards of what is attractive have begun to change. Clay Aiken, Kimberley Locke, and Ruben Studdard were the final three contestants of American Idol’s second season and none of them fall under the category of what would be defined as stereotypically beautiful.

It is more than likely that the reason why the levels of attraction were not as dominantly present was because of the show itself. Although the survey did say “favorite reality television personality,” the population was solicited from websites that did feature Survivor and the survey was on SurvivorThesis.com. One of the aspects of Survivor is camping and living in the outdoors where personal hygiene is not a main concern. Respondents may have had an initial attraction toward their favorite castaway when the program commenced but they may have changed their mind as the series progressed. In the future, it may be beneficial to choose a program such as American Idol or The Bachelor where this may not be an issue.

44 When the results were tabulated together, loneliness was found to be significant, which is contradictory to the original findings of A. Rubin, Perse, and Powell (1985). It was not a complete acceptance of Popcorn’s theory of cocooning because there was a form of community built in. The data collected lean toward the aspects of the literature that indicates that loneliness is correlated to parasocial interaction. This information reinforces the general populous concepts, that people that are lonely watch television.

The research has wavered between a possible correlation between parasocial interaction and loneliness. Cohen 1997 discovered a link between relationship status, gender, and parasocial interaction. Using this as a foundation, it was the current researcher’s intent to see if the factor of gender and not relationship status would influence levels of parasocial interaction and loneliness in a recreation of A. Rubin, Perse, and Powell (1985). The study was completed by only 87 men which on its own is not that strong of a population. Although there was not that much difference in the results between the genders, it would be interesting to see if a larger population of completed male surveys would make this hypothesis a more viable study. In fact, there may have been a significant difference if there were a larger male population. In future replications, the relationship status of the respondents should be examined. It would be interesting to examine if the length of time in a relationship would have any barring upon the level of parasocial interaction.

In regards to loneliness and parasocial interaction, it may be that viewers of reality television are using interpersonal functional alternatives to create a community instead of isolating themselves from society. It may give them a common ground on which to base their conversations with others whether in person, on their cell phone, on the Internet, or through correspondence. This could be seen by the higher amounts of coverage that these reality

45 television events receive in the traditional and electronic media which would contribute to the

audiences’ level of exposure. From iPods that broadcast live television to cell phones that relay instant messages the number of interpersonal functional alternatives are evolving in both their existence and how we use them daily. However, because there was a correlation between loneliness and parasocial interaction, it could be seen that even though there is a correlation between parasocial interaction and interpersonal functional alternatives that connections are being made, by that they do not in fact alleviate loneliness and could actually augment the

feeling of isolation. When a correlation was performed between interpersonal functional

alternatives and loneliness the results indicated a negative correlation (r = - .20). It would be

interesting to see the amount of time that the various forms of interpersonal functional

alternatives occupy in the lives of respondents and if there were a predilection amongst certain

categories of interpersonal functional alternatives to use other forms of interpersonal functional alternatives and if there were a change in the levels of parasocial interaction.

It is interesting to note that although the respondents felt that they had a connection with

their favorite reality television personality, they did not trust them. When they were asked if

they thought their favorite personae would only endorse a product that they trusted there was

only a 2% difference between the leading answers of “undecided” and “disagree”. The data leads

to the conclusion that the audience is actively aware that this format of reality can be

manipulated which goes against the prevalent mentality in regards to the fans of these shows. It

also shows that the audience is completely aware that their favorite reality television personality

is not a “victim” but a willing participant of the fantasy aspect of the genre.

Another aspect of this is because the survey was on Survivorthesis.com that several of the

respondents were fans of the show Survivor itself. The audience willingly accepts that lying and

46 scheming are parts of the show. The show’s motto of “Out wit, out last, out play” is a reminder

that the show itself is a deception because, in reality, although there are cameras everywhere,

there are not camera crews following the audience around. In the context of the game, lies and

alliances are a fundamental aspect of playing and are completely acceptable to deceive but it is unacceptable to be deceived.

One of the conventions of the genre is the surprise twists because of this players who formed one alliance at the beginning of the game may be in a situation where they must form another different alliance that predicates betraying the first alliance. In other words, you could swear to be in an alliance with Rob, Amber, Jenna, and Rupert one day but because of a surprise twist, you end up being transferred to another tribe – as was the situation in Survivor: All Stars when Brkich was removed from one tribe and placed into another. Mariano made a side alliance with another castaway guaranteeing him protection for Amber if the new alliance would be spared in the merge. Amber was spared, but during the merge, the alliance that protected Amber was then systematically eliminated by Mariano and Brkich.

In recent seasons, there have been acts of duplicity such as lying about a relative dying during the filming of Survivor to two castaways completely reinventing their life stories because one was an actor and the other was a former NFL Quarterback. Off camera, Survivor alumni have not fared much better in the media. Richard Hatch, the original winner, was recently convicted of tax fraud and is awaiting sentencing while fellow tribe-mate Jenna Lewis joined fellow reality television alumni, Paris Hilton, in a botched sex tape scandal.

Academically, this is an important finding because it reinforces concepts from public speaking literature. Trust is a key component in whether or not an audience will believe the message you are conveying. The population that participated in this study do not trust their

47 favorite reality television personality even though they like them. In the world of business, this

means that even though it would be beneficial to recycle the reality television personalities into

other television shows and magazines, it would not be beneficial to utilize them in an area where trust is the key advertising component unless it was meant to be a reversal campaign. Because exposure is a factor when it comes to both advertising and parasocial interaction, exposing your

product on a television series has proven to be beneficial and an important part of some product’s

success. The integrated marketing concepts of weaving the products into the actual show have

the advantage of not being able to be missed by the viewer unless they miss the entire section of

the show.

Network executives have speculated for years regarding an audiences’ motive for

watching television. When a correlation was performed between the Television Viewing

Motives scale and the Parasocial Interaction Scale the expected correlation was found (r=.49).

What was interesting was that arousal was a better predictor of parasocial interaction than entertainment. Arousal in this category does not imply sexual arousal or any form of attraction.

The questions in this subset all revolve around the concept that the show is exciting, thrilling and peps me up (Table 9). Survivor the television series has consistently made a point of continuously fusing both entertainment in the forms of the players that are cast and the constant

evolution of the game. This could be why arousal ranks the highest when correlated with

parasocial interaction.

Every season the show has one form of exciting change that is followed by another –

from how the tribes are formed, to how the rewards are dispensed, to if a merger will even occur.

It is surprising to see that these changes are a better predictor than the entertainment subcategory because the show revolves around the group dynamics which usually entertain, amuse and are

48 enjoyable. Perhaps it is a combination of the two that should be analyzed because the group dynamics are also shifting constantly. This season’s Survivor: Exile Island features an island where one castaway from the losing reward challenge must be left, without their tribe, on the island to fend for themselves for two days. Ordinarily this move would be a fatal blow to a player because it removes them from the game that is constantly being played on the Tribes’ respective beaches. It is both exciting and entertaining to see how the exiled tribe member returns to their tribe and if they can proceed to form or reestablish a bond with the rest of their tribe mates before the next Tribal Council ceremony.

Although the results of this study were in line with the original design of the Parasocial

Interaction Scale there are a few areas for improvement within the experiment. Moments after the first subject took the survey, there was a comment thread started on a message board for the website www.survivorsucks.com that discussed the questions and the implications of the research. The website and the questions that were used to collect data were not pilot tested which could have eliminated the concerns that subjects later expressed on the message board thread.

Although not all of the subjects were recruited from just that one site in particular, it is important to note that the subjects from that site became very vocal in regards to the direction of the research. There was a strong reaction to the questions regarding loneliness from the posters.

Certain members of that community expressed that they felt a researcher bias toward the predilection to link reality television and loneliness. However, the same posters also admitted to not completing the questionnaire. Because of the nebulous link between loneliness and parasocial interaction there stands the potential to recreate the study with different questions or perhaps a different Likert scale set that may lead future researchers in the right direction. There

49 could also be a stance that these types of programs are creating communities and instead of

breeding loneliness, they are actually being used as a communication tool that can build

communities where information can be exchanged in a similar way that the information was

exchanged regarding this survey.

In examining the correlations between the amount of exposure and the levels of

parasocial interaction it is my belief that the survey did not completely reach its intended

audience. My personal belief is that because the term “reality television” is unformulated, that

respondents may be watching programs that could be classified as reality television that were not

originally thought of in regards to the survey. A way to counter act this would have been to

make every question specifically geared toward the series Survivor and to include a list of what constitutes a reality television show. Because of this ambiguity casual viewers of the program or of reality television may have decided to participate in the study which would have skewed the

results. This could have been accounted for by asking the respondents if they would ever

participate in a reality television program or if they ever have auditioned for a reality television program.

In a recent Nielson Scan, the first episode of American Idol’s fifth season became the most

watched program outside of a Super Bowl. With over 30 million viewers, the show defeated

President Bush’s State of the Union address which was only watched by 20 million people over

four different networks. Originally considered a fad that would end, the original American Idol,

Kelly Clarkson has broken records as a Grammy winning recording artist with her two multi- platinum albums. At the 2006 Grammy Awards, she defeated other recording artists with a combined 75 years in the music industry shocking not only the world, but also herself. She has been featured in movies, television shows, ring tones, and iPods everywhere. In essence reality

50 television is not going to go away. Instead it is being married to more and more aspects of our lives which accounts for why parasocial interaction will become a more important aspect in communication.

51

APPENDIX A: TABLES

52 Table 1: Age and Television Viewing Habits

Variables Mean Std. Deviation N

Age 34.23 12.51 444

Hours of television watched per week 18.22 12.73 444

Hours of reality television watched per week 4.65 5.42 444

53 Table 2: Means and standard deviations for parasocial interaction, loneliness, television watching motives, media alternatives, and spokesperson scales.

Variables Mean Std. Deviation N

Parasocial Interaction * 24.18 6.52 435 Male Respondents** 24.57 6.84 87 Female Respondents*** 24.08 6.44 348

Loneliness **** 8.66 4.31 440 Male Respondents***** 9.00 4.53 87 Female Respondents****** 8.58 4.26 353

Television Viewing Motives ******* 43.29 13.91 432 Entertainment 9.52 2.63 438 Relaxation 6.36 2.86 438 Habit 5.83 2.38 437 Arousal 5.68 2.75 437 Pass Time 4.84 2.92 438 Social Interaction 4.11 2.59 436 Escape 3.23 2.50 436 Information 2.55 2.55 438 Companionship 1.12 1.89 437

Interpersonal Functional Alternatives ******** 24.13 6.02 440

Spokesperson Affinity ********* 8.11 3.59 437 ______* The higher number represents more parasocial interaction. See Table 3 for a list of individual questions.

** The higher number represents more parasocial interaction. See Table 4 for a list of individual questions.

*** The higher number represents more parasocial interaction. See Table 5 for a list of individual questions.

**** The higher number represents more loneliness. See Table 6 for a list of individual questions

***** The higher number represents more loneliness. See Table 7 for a list of individual questions

****** The higher number represents more loneliness. See Table 8 for a list of individual questions

******* The higher number represents motivation to watch television. See Table 9 for a list of individual questions

******** The higher number represents more usage of interpersonal functional alternatives. See Table 10 for a list of individual questions

********* The higher number represents more spokesperson affinity. See Table 11 for a list of individual questions.

54 Table 3: Percentages of parasocial interaction for the entire sample

Variable %

I feel sorry for my favorite reality television personality when they make a mistake.

Strongly Agree 11.7% Agree 56.5% Undecided 7.7% Disagree 19.1% Strongly Disagree 4.1% ______

100.00%

The reality television personalities make me feel comfortable, as if I am with friends.

Strongly Agree 4.3% Agree 32.4% Undecided 23.2% Disagree 32.0% Strongly Disagree 7.5% ______

100.00%

I see my favorite reality television personality as a natural, down-to-earth person.

Strongly Agree 11.5% Agree 48.6% Undecided 18.0% Disagree 16.4% Strongly Disagree 4.5% ______

100.00%

I look forward to watching my favorite reality television personality on television.

Strongly Agree 35.1% Agree 47.1% Undecided 7.0% Disagree 6.8% Strongly Disagree 2.9% ______

100.00%

55 Table 3: Percentages of parasocial interaction for the entire sample

Variable %

If my favorite reality television personality appeared on another TV program I would watch that program.

Strongly Agree 16.2% Agree 35.6% Undecided 29.3% Disagree 13.7% Strongly Disagree 3.6% ______

100.00%

When my favorite reality television personality tells a story, they seem to understand the kinds of things I want to know.

Strongly Agree 3.2% Agree 20.7% Undecided 47.1% Disagree 24.8% Strongly Disagree 3.2% ______

100.00%

If there were a story about my favorite reality television personality in a newspaper or a magazine I would read it.

Strongly Agree 20.5% Agree 61.0% Undecided 9.0% Disagree 6.5% Strongly Disagree 1.8% ______

100.00%

I miss seeing my favorite reality television personality when they are no longer on the show.

Strongly Agree 14.6% Agree 46.8% Undecided 13.7% Disagree 21.7% Strongly Disagree 3.2% ______

100.00%

56 Table 3: Percentages of parasocial interaction for the entire sample

Variable %

I would like to meet my favorite reality television personality.

Strongly Agree 10.1% Agree 26.8% Undecided 22.3% Disagree 31.1% Strongly Disagree 8.7% ______

100.00%

I find my favorite reality television personality attractive.

Strongly Agree 7.4% Agree 42.1% Undecided 29.4% Disagree 18.5% Strongly Disagree 2.5% ______

100.00%

57 Table 4: Percentages of parasocial interaction for male respondents

Variable %

I feel sorry for my favorite reality television personality when they make a mistake.

Strongly Agree 12.5% Agree 46.6% Undecided 10.2% Disagree 23.9% Strongly Disagree 6.8% ______

100.00%

The reality television personalities make me feel comfortable, as if I am with friends.

Strongly Agree 5.7% Agree 36.4% Undecided 18.2% Disagree 33.0% Strongly Disagree 6.8% ______

100.00%

I see my favorite reality television personality as a natural, down-to-earth person.

Strongly Agree 15.9% Agree 39.8% Undecided 21.6% Disagree 18.2% Strongly Disagree 4.5% ______

100.00%

I look forward to watching my favorite reality television personality on television.

Strongly Agree 36.4% Agree 37.5% Undecided 13.6% Disagree 8.0% Strongly Disagree 4.5% ______

100.00%

58

Table 4: Percentages of parasocial interaction for male respondents

Variable %

If my favorite reality television personality appeared on another TV program I would watch that program.

Strongly Agree 17.2% Agree 32.2% Undecided 32.2% Disagree 13.8% Strongly Disagree 4.6% ______

100.00%

When my favorite reality television personality tells a story, they seem to understand the kinds of things I want to know.

Strongly Agree 5.7% Agree 24.1% Undecided 47.1% Disagree 21.8% Strongly Disagree 1.1% ______

100.00%

If there were a story about my favorite reality television personality in a newspaper or a magazine I would read it.

Strongly Agree 28.7% Agree 52.9% Undecided 8.0% Disagree 9.2% Strongly Disagree 1.1% ______

100.00%

59 Table 4: Percentages of parasocial interaction for male respondents

Variable %

I miss seeing my favorite reality television personality when they are no longer on the show.

Strongly Agree 13.8% Agree 47.1% Undecided 16.1% Disagree 19.5% Strongly Disagree 3.4% ______

100.00%

I would like to meet my favorite reality television personality.

Strongly Agree 13.8% Agree 34.5% Undecided 27.6% Disagree 20.7% Strongly Disagree 3.4% ______

100.00%

I find my favorite reality television personality attractive.

Strongly Agree 13.8% Agree 37.9% Undecided 29.9% Disagree 17.2% Strongly Disagree 1.1% ______

100.00%

60 Table 5: Percentages of parasocial interaction for female respondents

Variable %

I feel sorry for my favorite reality television personality when they make a mistake.

Strongly Agree 11.6% Agree 59.7% Undecided 7.1% Disagree 18.2% Strongly Disagree 3.4% ______

100.00%

The reality television personalities make me feel comfortable, as if I am with friends.

Strongly Agree 4.0% Agree 31.8% Undecided 24.7% Disagree 31.8% Strongly Disagree 7.7% ______

100.00%

I see my favorite reality television personality as a natural, down-to-earth person.

Strongly Agree 10.5% Agree 51.4% Undecided 17.3% Disagree 16.2% Strongly Disagree 4.5% ______

100.00%

I look forward to watching my favorite reality television personality on television.

Strongly Agree 35.3% Agree 50.1% Undecided 5.4% Disagree 6.6% Strongly Disagree 2.6% ______

100.00%

61

Table 5: Percentages of parasocial interaction for female respondents

Variable %

If my favorite reality television personality appeared on another TV program I would watch that program.

Strongly Agree 16.3% Agree 37.1% Undecided 29.1% Disagree 14.0% Strongly Disagree 3.4% ______

100.00%

When my favorite reality television personality tells a story, they seem to understand the kinds of things I want to know.

Strongly Agree 2.6% Agree 20.2% Undecided 47.7% Disagree 25.9% Strongly Disagree 3.7% ______

100.00%

If there were a story about my favorite reality television personality in a newspaper or a magazine I would read it.

Strongly Agree 18.8% Agree 63.9% Undecided 9.4% Disagree 6.0% Strongly Disagree 2.0% ______

100.00%

62 Table 5: Percentages of parasocial interaction for female respondents

Variable %

I miss seeing my favorite reality television personality when they are no longer on the show.

Strongly Agree 14.8% Agree 46.7% Undecided 13.1% Disagree 22.0% Strongly Disagree 3.1% ______

100.00%

I would like to meet my favorite reality television personality.

Strongly Agree 9.4% Agree 25.3% Undecided 21.3% Disagree 34.1% Strongly Disagree 9.9% ______

100.00%

I find my favorite reality television personality attractive.

Strongly Agree 6.0% Agree 43.2% Undecided 29.3% Disagree 18.8% Strongly Disagree 2.8% ______

100.00%

63 Table 6: Percentages of loneliness for entire sample

Variable %

How often do you feel that you lack companionship?

Always 24.3% Sometimes 38.3% Rarely 31.8% Never 5.4% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that you have a lot in common with the people around you?

Always 1.8% Sometimes 8.1% Rarely 59.9% Never 29.7% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel close to people?

Always 0.9% Sometimes 7.7% Rarely 55.4% Never 36.5% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel left out?

Always 3.6% Sometimes 39.0% Rarely 48.2% Never 8.8% ______

100.00%

64

Table 6: Percentages of loneliness for entire sample

Variable %

How often do you feel that no one really knows you well?

Always 6.8% Sometimes 43.5% Rarely 36.7% Never 12.6% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel isolated from others?

Always 3.8% Sometimes 30.2% Rarely 45.0% Never 20.3% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that there are people who really understand you?

Always 2.3% Sometimes 13.5% Rarely 56.3% Never 27.5% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that people are around you but not with you?

Always 3.6% Sometimes 45.5% Rarely 38.5% Never 11.7% ______

100.00%

65

Table 6: Percentages of loneliness for entire sample

Variable %

How often do you feel that there are people you can talk to?

Always 1.4% Sometimes 7.0% Rarely 25.0% Never 66.4% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that there are people that you can turn to?

Always 1.1% Sometimes 5.6% Rarely 22.5% Never 70.5% ______

100.00%

66 Table 7: Percentages of loneliness for male respondents

Variable %

How often do you feel that you lack companionship?

Always 24.7% Sometimes 40.4% Rarely 29.2% Never 5.6% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that you have a lot in common with the people around you?

Always 4.5% Sometimes 6.8% Rarely 62.5% Never 26.1% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel close to people?

Always 2.3% Sometimes 6.8% Rarely 63.6% Never 27.3% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel left out?

Always 5.7% Sometimes 28.4% Rarely 53.4% Never 12.5% ______

100.00%

67

Table 7: Percentages of loneliness for male respondents

Variable %

How often do you feel that no one really knows you well?

Always 6.8% Sometimes 37.5% Rarely 38.6% Never 17.0% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel isolated from others?

Always 6.9% Sometimes 25.3% Rarely 44.8% Never 23.0% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that there are people who really understand you?

Always 6.8% Sometimes 18.2% Rarely 53.4% Never 21.6% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that people are around you but not with you?

Always 4.5% Sometimes 45.5% Rarely 39.8% Never 10.2% ______

100.00%

68

Table 7: Percentages of loneliness for male respondents

Variable %

How often do you feel that there are people you can talk to?

Always 1.1% Sometimes 10.2% Rarely 27.3% Never 61.4% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that there are people that you can turn to?

Always 1.1% Sometimes 8.0% Rarely 26.1% Never 64.8% ______

100.00%

69 Table 8: Percentages of loneliness for female respondents

Variable %

How often do you feel that you lack companionship?

Always 24.3% Sometimes 37.9% Rarely 32.5% Never 5.4% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that you have a lot in common with the people around you?

Always 1.1% Sometimes 8.5% Rarely 59.6% Never 30.8% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel close to people?

Always 0.6% Sometimes 7.9% Rarely 52.5% Never 39.0% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel left out?

Always 3.1% Sometimes 41.8% Rarely 47.2% Never 7.9% ______

100.00%

70

Table 8: Percentages of loneliness for female respondents

Variable %

How often do you feel that no one really knows you well?

Always 6.8% Sometimes 45.2% Rarely 36.4% Never 11.6% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel isolated from others?

Always 3.1% Sometimes 31.6% Rarely 43.5% Never 19.8% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that there are people who really understand you?

Always 1.1% Sometimes 12.4% Rarely 57.3% Never 29.1% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that people are around you but not with you?

Always 3.4% Sometimes 45.9% Rarely 38.5% Never 12.2% ______

100.00%

71

Table 8: Percentages of loneliness for female respondents

Variable %

How often do you feel that there are people you can talk to?

Always 1.4% Sometimes 6.2% Rarely 24.5% Never 67.9% ______

100.00%

How often do you feel that there are people that you can turn to?

Always 1.1% Sometimes 5.1% Rarely 21.7% Never 72.1% ______

100.00%

72 Table 9: Percentages of television viewing motives for entire sample

Variable %

1. Entertainment:

I watch Reality Television because it entertains me.

Exactly 51.1% A lot 29.7% Somewhat 13.5% Not much 1.4% Not at all 2.9% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television because it’s enjoyable.

Exactly 43.9% A lot 33.1% Somewhat 17.1% Not much 1.8% Not at all 2.9% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television because it amuses me.

Exactly 41.7% A lot 33.8% Somewhat 18.9% Not much 1.4% Not at all 3.2% ______

100.00%

2. Relaxation:

I watch Reality Television because it’s a pleasant rest.

Exactly 17.1% A lot 19.8% Somewhat 43.5% Not much 11.7% Not at all 7.0% ______

100.00%

73 Table 9: Percentages of television viewing motives for entire sample

Variable %

I watch Reality Television because it relaxes me.

Exactly 11.3% A lot 17.8% Somewhat 38.3% Not much 21.2% Not at all 10.1% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television because it allows me to unwind.

Exactly 11.7% A lot 20.7% Somewhat 41.0% Not much 14.2% Not at all 11.0% ______

100.00%

3. Habit:

I watch Reality Television because I just like to watch.

Exactly 48.4% A lot 22.5% Somewhat 17.8% Not much 5.6% Not at all 4.7% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television because it’s a habit, just something I do.

Exactly 6.1% A lot 8.3% Somewhat 35.1% Not much 20.0% Not at all 29.1% ______

100.00%

74 Table 9: Percentages of television viewing motives for entire sample

Variable %

I watch Reality Television just because it is there.

Exactly 5.2% A lot 9.0% Somewhat 31.5% Not much 22.7% Not at all 30.0% ______

100.00%

4. Arousal:

I watch Reality Television because it peps me up.

Exactly 4.1% A lot 8.8% Somewhat 25.9% Not much 32.9% Not at all 26.8% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television because it’s exciting.

Exactly 18.0% A lot 25.0% Somewhat 39.4% Not much 10.8% Not at all 5.6% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television because it’s thrilling.

Exactly 12.4% A lot 16.0% Somewhat 37.6% Not much 22.7% Not at all 9.9% ______

100.00%

75 Table 9: Percentages of television viewing motives for entire sample

Variable %

5. Pass Time:

I watch Reality Television because it gives me something to occupy my time.

Exactly 13.3% A lot 22.1% Somewhat 40.1% Not much 11.0% Not at all 12.4% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television when I have nothing better to do.

Exactly 6.3% A lot 12.2% Somewhat 26.1% Not much 19.6% Not at all 34.5% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored.

Exactly 4.5% A lot 11.0% Somewhat 30.9% Not much 20.5% Not at all 31.8% ______

100.00%

6. Social Interaction:

I watch Reality Television so I can be with other members of the family or friends who are watching.

Exactly 8.1% A lot 14.9% Somewhat 27.5% Not much 20.5% Not at all 27.7% ______

100.00%

76 Table 9: Percentages of television viewing motives for entire sample

Variable %

I watch Reality Television because it’s something to do when friends come over.

Exactly 2.3% A lot 6.8% Somewhat 21.8% Not much 20.9% Not at all 46.4% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television so I can talk with other people about what’s on.

Exactly 5.2% A lot 14.2% Somewhat 37.2% Not much 20.7% Not at all 21.2% ______

100.00%

7. Escape:

I watch Reality Television so I can forget about school, work, or other things.

Exactly 10.1% A lot 16.7% Somewhat 32.0% Not much 16.0% Not at all 23.9% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television so I can get away from the rest of the family or others.

Exactly 0.9% A lot 0.9% Somewhat 7.9% Not much 17.8% Not at all 71.2% ______

100.00%

77 Table 9: Percentages of television viewing motives for entire sample

Variable %

I watch Reality Television so I can get away from what I’m doing.

Exactly 4.5% A lot 8.1% Somewhat 20.0% Not much 24.5% Not at all 41.0% ______

100.00%

8. Information:

I watch Reality Television so I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done before.

Exactly 2.5% A lot 3.2% Somewhat 18.9% Not much 30.6% Not at all 43.5% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television because it helps me learn things about myself and others.

Exactly 4.1% A lot 6.8% Somewhat 22.7% Not much 31.3% Not at all 33.8% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television so I could learn about what could happen to me.

Exactly 1.6% A lot 1.6% Somewhat 9.9% Not much 19.8% Not at all 65.8% ______

100.00%

78 Table 9: Percentages of television viewing motives for entire sample

Variable %

9. Companionship:

I watch Reality Television so I won’t have to be alone.

Exactly 0.9% A lot 0.7% Somewhat 4.5% Not much 14.6% Not at all 77.9% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television because it makes me feel less lonely.

Exactly 0.5% A lot 0.9% Somewhat 5.4% Not much 13.7% Not at all 78.2% ______

100.00%

I watch Reality Television when there’s no one else to talk to or be with.

Exactly 1.6% A lot 2.9% Somewhat 10.8% Not much 18.9% Not at all 64.2% ______

100.00%

79 Table 10: Percentages of interpersonal functional alternatives for entire sample

Variable %

If I were lonely I would call or talk to friends.

Strongly Agree 36.3% Agree 48.0% Undecided 7.9% Disagree 5.4% Strongly Disagree 1.8% ______

100.00%

If I were lonely I would call or talk to family.

Strongly Agree 40.3% Agree 44.8% Undecided 6.1% Disagree 5.9% Strongly Disagree 2.3% ______

100.00%

If I were lonely I would email or Instant Message friends.

Strongly Agree 23.2% Agree 43.5% Undecided 10.8% Disagree 16.4% Strongly Disagree 5.2% ______

100.00%

If I were lonely I would email or Instant Message family.

Strongly Agree 16.7% Agree 40.5% Undecided 11.9% Disagree 22.1% Strongly Disagree 7.9% ______

100.00%

80 Table 10: Percentages of interpersonal functional alternatives for entire sample

Variable %

If I were lonely I would surf the Internet.

Strongly Agree 21.2% Agree 44.6% Undecided 17.6% Disagree 11.3% Strongly Disagree 4.7% ______

100.00%

If I were lonely I would read a magazine.

Strongly Agree 11.7% Agree 51.1% Undecided 12.6% Disagree 17.8% Strongly Disagree 6.1% ______

100.00%

If I were lonely I would do a household chore.

Strongly Agree 12.2% Agree 40.5% Undecided 19.4% Disagree 18.5% Strongly Disagree 8.8% ______

100.00%

If I were lonely I would listen to the radio.

Strongly Agree 10.6% Agree 40.8% Undecided 13.3% Disagree 27.5% Strongly Disagree 7.0% ______

100.00%

81 Table 10: Percentages of interpersonal functional alternatives for entire sample

Variable %

If I were lonely I would go to work.

Strongly Agree 5.2% Agree 20.7% Undecided 18.5% Disagree 32.2% Strongly Disagree 22.5% ______

100.00%

If I were lonely I would go to a movie

Strongly Agree 5.4% Agree 27.9% Undecided 18.0% Disagree 28.2% Strongly Disagree 19.6% ______

100.00%

82 Table 11: Percentages of spokesperson affinity for entire sample

Variable %

I would stop watching the show if my favorite reality television was voted off

Strongly Agree 0.9% Agree 4.5% Undecided 8.3% Disagree 56.5% Strongly Disagree 28.4% ______

100.00%

I would buy a product my favorite person on the show endorses

Strongly Agree 0.7% Agree 4.1% Undecided 40.5% Disagree 38.1% Strongly Disagree 15.5% ______

100.00%

Watching my favorite reality television personality enjoying a product makes me want to sample the product

Strongly Agree 1.4% Agree 10.6% Undecided 26.6% Disagree 44.8% Strongly Disagree 15.3% ______

100.00%

My favorite reality television personality would only endorse a product that they trust

Strongly Agree 0.9% Agree 6.5% Undecided 34.9% Disagree 36.0% Strongly Disagree 20.5% ______

100.00%

83

Table 11: Percentages of spokesperson affinity for entire sample

Variable %

I trust the products that my favorite reality television Personality would endorse

Strongly Agree 0.7% Agree 5.2% Undecided 34.7% Disagree 42.8% Strongly Disagree 15.5% ______

100.00%

I would read a book written by my favorite reality television personality

Strongly Agree 2.7% Agree 20.7% Undecided 42.6% Disagree 23.9% Strongly Disagree 8.8% ______

100.00%

84 Table 12: Correlations for Parasocial Interaction

Variable Parasocial Interaction Loneliness .11*

Male Respondents .16

Female Respondents .09

Television Watching Motives .49**

Arousal .62**

Entertainment .52

Relaxation .47**

Information .29**

Social Interaction .24**

Habit .23**

Escape .21**

Companionship .15**

Pass Time -.02

Interpersonal Functional Alternatives .03

Spokesperson Affinity .55**

Television Exposure .18**

Reality Television Exposure .25** .

Age -.05 ______

* Significant at the .05 level ** Significant at the .01 level *** Significant at the .001 level

85

APPENDIX B: WEBSITE

86

87 88 89 90

91

APPENDIX C: HIGHLIGHTS CHRONICLING THE MEDIA’S COVERAGE OF BRKICH & MARIANO’S RELATIONSHIP

92

In The Beginning: Survivor: All Star Season Announced

93

Once the relationship of Brkich & Mariano began the attention focused from the game of Survivor to the fledging couple.

94

If Brkich would accept Mariano’s proposal (in front of a studio audience) became more important to Survivor fans than discovering the winner of Survivor: All Stars

95

Brkich & Mariano’s nuptials became a gold mine for companies affiliated with the couples televised wedding.

96

Brkich & Mariano’s Wedding and Honeymoon became the most successful Survivor Alliance in the show’s history.

97

APPENDIX D: OTHER REALITY TELEVISION SHOWS COVERAGE

98

A small sampling of the coverage of Trista Rehn & Ryan Sutter’s Wedding

99

A small sampling of the coverage devoted to reality television romances

100

A small sampling of the coverage devoted to reality television

101

APPENDIX E: IRB INFORMATION

102

103

104

105

106 LIST OF REFERENCES

Abelman, R. (1987). Religious television uses and gratification. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31, 293-307.

Armstrong, C., & Rubin, A. (1989). Talk radio as interpersonal communication. Journal of Communication, 2(39), 84-94.

Auter, P. (1992). TV that talks back: An experimental validation of a parasocial interaction scale. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 36, 173-181.

Babrow, A. (1987). Student motives for watching soap operas. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 309-321.

Babrow, A. (1988). Theory and method in research on audience motives. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 471-487.

Bantz, C. (1982). Exploring uses and gratifications: A comparison of reported uses of television and reported uses of favorite program type. Communication Research, 352-379.

Brkich. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from Amber Brkich-Mariano’s, Web site: http://www.amber-brkich.com/

Cohen, J (1997). Parasocial Relations and Romantic Attraction: Gender and Dating Status Differences. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43-66.

Collins, N. L. (1994). Working models of attachment: Implications or explanation, emotion, and behavior. Unpublished manuscript. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644-663.

Conway, J., & Rubin, A. (1991). Psychological predictors of television viewing motivation. Communication Research, 443-463.

Dobos, J., & Dimmick, J. (1988). Factor analysis and gratification constructs. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 335-350.

Finn, S. (1988). Television addicition? An evaluation of four competing media use models. Journalism Quarterly, 422-435.

Finn, S., & Gorr, M. (1988). Social isolation and social support as correlates of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 135-158.

107

Furno-Lamude, D., & Anderson, J. (1992). The uses and gratifications of rerun viewing. Journalism Quarterly, 362-372.

Grant, A., Guthrie, K., & Ball-Rokeach, S. Television shopping: A media system dependency perspective. Communication Research, 215-229.

Greenberg, B. (1974). J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 215-229.

Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Levy, M. (1979). Watching TV news as parasocial interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 69-80.

Levy, M., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 11, 51-78.

Lull, James (1990). Inside Family Viewing: Ethnographic Research on Television’s Audiences. London: Routledge

McQuail, D. (1987). Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction (2nd edn.). London: Sage

Miller, R. (1984). A descriptive study of television usage among older Americans: Refining the parasocial concept. Dissertation Abstracts International, 2282A.

Nordlund, J. (1978). Media Interaction. Communication Research, 150-175. One of 16 men and women stranded on an uninhabited island will outlast the others and win $1,000,000 on the new CBS reality adventure series SURVIVOR. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from CBS Web site: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/buzz/press_release100799.shtml

Ostman, R., & Jeffers, D. (1983). Life stages and motives for television use. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 315-322.

Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J., II. (1979). Uses and gratifications and exposure to public television: A discrepancy approach. Communication Research, 155-179.

Perse, E. (1990). Media involvement and local news effects. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 17-36.

108 Perse, E., & Rubin, A. (1988). Audience activity and satisfaction with favorite television soap opera. Journalism Quarterly, 368-375.

Perse, E., & Rubin, R. (1989). Attribution in social and parasocial relationships. Communication Research, 59-77.

Popcorn, F. (1998). Clicking: 17 Trends That Drive Your Business--And Your Life. New York, New York: HarperCollins.

Rosengren, K., & Windahl, S. (1972). D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communications. Middlesex, England: Penguin.

Rubin, A. (1977). Television usage, attitudes and viewing behaviors of children and adolescents. Journal of Broadcasting, 355-369.

Rubin, A. (1979). Television use by children and adolescents. Human Communication Research, 109-120.

Rubin, A. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 141-165.

Rubin, A. (1981). A multivariate analysis of "60 minutes" viewing motivations. Journalism Quarterly, 58, 529-534.

Rubin, A. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 37-51.

Rubin, A. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 67-77.

Rubin, A., & Perse, E. (1987a). Audience activity and soap opera involvement. Human Communication Research, 246-268.

Rubin, A., & Perse, E. (1987b). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14, 58-84.

Rubin, A., Perse, E., & Powell, R. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 155-180.

Rubin, A., & Rubin, R. (1982). Older persons' TV viewing patterns and motivations. Communication Research, 9, 287-313.

Rubin, A., & Step, M. (2000). Impact of Motivation, Attraction, and Parasocial Interaction on Talk Radio Listening. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Fall 2000, 635- 654.

109

Rubin, R., & McHugh, M. (1987). Development of parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 279-292.

Ryan, J. (2005). Monaco, O'Hurley: "Dancing" Rematch! Retrieved October 15, 2005, from E! Web site: http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,17185,00.html.

Ryan, J. (2002). No “Idol” Controversy. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from E! Web site: http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,10415,00.html?newsrellink

Sun, S.-W., & Lull, J. (1986). The adolescent audience for music videos and why they watch. Journal of Communication, 36(1), 115-125.

Trista Sutter Biography. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from ABC Web site: http://abc.go.com/primetime/dancing/bios/trista_sutter.html.

110